David writes:
> Your evidence is compelling but I think we are making a typical error
> that occurs frequently in ecological and sociological studies:
> Drawing conclusions based on limited scale. It is true that wealthy,
> western cultures place high priority on preserving aesthetic
> resources. What is ignored in the analysis is that our wealth and
> consumption are no longer limited to our immediate locale. We do not
> protect our forests because we are wealthy, but because we can afford
> to economically coerce third world countries into destroying theirs.
>
> The only simple trend I see in this pattern that the wealthier a
> country becomes the farther out-of-sight (and consequently out-of-
> mind) their exploitation becomes
There is certainly some of that "hidden" exploitation in the world today, to
be sure. Nonetheless, I still remain highly optimistic, in great part because
of the increased interconnectivity of the world now, especially with regards
to communication. No place is remote any longer, and no egregious action can
remain out of sight for long.
In that regard, let me refer you to an Op-Ed piece that Jared Diamond wrote
in the NY Times six years ago. His comments form a part of my optimism.
Although I've previously posted this piece a few years ago here on ECOLOG-L,
I've
also put a copy of it up on one of our auxiliary servers:
http://67.41.4.238/diamond-greening.html
Sebastian also writes:
> Besides confusing correlation and
> cause-effect, Wirt's argument implies that poor countries have the
> *choice* to either protect or destroy their environment.
No, the essence of what I'm arguing is that poor populations have no choice,
and that such choice will only occur once they become prosperous. While I
agree that the causations of their resource destruction may be highly varied
and
complex, in the aggregate, the trend seems simple and clear.
Wirt Atmar
